Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday October 31 2015, @03:43PM   Printer-friendly
from the concerning-but-not-surprising dept.

AlterNet reports

A research team from the Institute of Bee Health at the University of Bern, from Agroscope at the Swiss Confederation, and from the Department of Biology at Canada's Acadia University [published the results of their study] in an article in the open-access journal Scientific Reports from the Nature Publishing Group [which concludes] that honey bee queens are "extremely vulnerable" to the neonicotinoids thiamethoxam and clothianidin.
[Reprinted in the journal Nature."]

The study shows profound effects on queen physiology, anatomy, and overall reproductive success.

[...] Previous research suggests that exposure to these chemicals [causes] both lethal and sub-lethal effects on honey bee workers, but nothing has been known about how they may affect queens.

The observation that honey bee queens are highly vulnerable to these common neonicotinoid pesticides is "worrisome, but not surprising", says senior author Laurent Gauthier from the Swiss Confederation's Agroscope.

[...] Since there is only a single queen in each colony, queen health is crucial to colony survival.

[...] In 2013, governments in Europe took a precautionary approach by partially restricting the application of the neonicotinoid pesticides thiamethoxam, clothianidin, and imidacloprid, with the mandate to perform further environmental risk assessments.

A new inter-governmental review will take place in the coming months.

Previous: Can Obama Save the Bees?
EPA Finds Little Benefit to Pesticide Linked to Bee Declines


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday October 31 2015, @04:12PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 31 2015, @04:12PM (#256914) Journal

    Let's look at humans. There are all sorts of chemicals and crap that irritate humans. Pregnant humans are often more sensitive to these irritants than other humans. Pregnant humans often seem to suffer more from these irritants than other humans. Pregnant humans also experience a risk to their offspring by way of these irritants. Smoking, alcohol, drugs, poor nutrition, cancer causing agents, the list goes on and on.

    So, we look at an insect - not just an insect, but a hive insect. And, we are surprised that the only breeding female in the hive suffers from something that is meant to kill - INSECTS???

    Duhhhh - WTF did they expect to find? That all the workers and drones tended to die off, leaving the queen to die of loneliness? Of course the queen is as susceptible to these poisons as any other bee. We might reasonably expect that the queen is more sensitive to the poison than other bees are. Without a study, we don't KNOW that, but yes, we can reasonably expect it to be so.

    "Since there is only a single queen in each colony, queen health is crucial to colony survival." It didn't really require a study to conclude that much.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 31 2015, @05:17PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 31 2015, @05:17PM (#256929)

    Unfortunately it does require a study. First, it is the scientific way to verify hypotheses with experimentation, but most importantly, politically, it provides proof that regulators can use against companies fighting any bans againsts pesticides.

    It is common practice for companies to use FUD to prevent meaningful regulations of pesticides, and they can use the lack of any conclusive studies to prevent any regulations against their products.

  • (Score: 1) by linkdude64 on Saturday October 31 2015, @06:03PM

    by linkdude64 (5482) on Saturday October 31 2015, @06:03PM (#256940)

    I'll never forget staring at the television a few years ago with incredulity as the broadcasted news anchor described, with a perfectly straight face, the release of a new study that concluded eating fresh fruits and vegetables was beneficial to your health.

    These types of studies are not released for sane individuals. These types of studies are released for bureaucrats who will sign the bill sentencing hundreds of innocent people to death because the "Intel" has shown that it will net their campaign funders extra money by increasing demand for bombs, which will create Red White and Blue, Capital-A, deep-fried American jobs. It's all cognitive dissonance and plausible deniability for them. They will only care enough to ret-con and alter their previously fervent statements and voting records when studies this are released and they can no longer plea "ignorance" that is conviently profitable.

    Speaking of back-tracking on voting records, I am especially reminded of Hillary Clinton, who has defended her infuriatingly status-quo-complacent and lobbied-for stances she has had in the past because the "Intel was bad/I didn't know it would be harmful/Didn't know it was against the law." Meaning there was really no intel at all, and she, like the EPA (and equivalent international agencies) who allow these pesticides, simply choose what was more profitable at the time.

    Let's hope somebody sane gets elected so that their influence might spread throughout governing agencies.

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday October 31 2015, @06:33PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 31 2015, @06:33PM (#256949) Journal

      "These types of studies are not released for sane individuals."

      That's kinda scary, when you think about it. What is sane, anyway? When 98 out of 100 people eat this shit up, if they even bother to watch/read/listen to the news, does that mean that we're the insane ones?

      And, that's not even a partisan observation. Righties probably disbelieve this report, or at best it's, "Aww shit, are the lefties right about this? How much is it going to cost me?" Lefties are just as bad, with "See, I told you so!" And, in reality, little if anything changes. Bayer is still going to buy off the policians necessary to protect their investment. Bayer, and every other major corporation out there. If Bayer can't afford enough politicians to get what they want, they'll just find common cause with another corporation. If that is even necessary - with all the interlocked boards of directors, there will be other corporations in line to come to Bayer's aid.

  • (Score: 1) by driverless on Sunday November 01 2015, @04:08AM

    by driverless (4770) on Sunday November 01 2015, @04:08AM (#257090)

    Pregnant humans are often more sensitive to these irritants than other humans. Pregnant humans often seem to suffer more from these irritants than other humans.

    I'll say. "Stop thinking in that tone of voice, the sun is too loud, I hate the way you lick stamps, my hair hurts, YOU DID THIS TO ME ITS ALL YOUR FAULT YOU SEE WHAT ITS LIKE CARRYING A WATERMELON AROUND FOR NINE MONTHS ARGGHHH!!!!!!!", everything seems to irritate them.